Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40000918›Full record

ArticleThe Medical journal of Australia2025

Mandatory research projects during medical specialist training in Australia and New Zealand: a survey of trainees' experiences and reports.

Paulina Stehlik, Caitlyn Withers, Rachel C Bourke, Adrian G Barnett, Caitlin Brandenburg, Christy Noble, Alexandra Bannach-Brown, Gerben B Keijzers, Ian A Scott, Paul P Glasziou and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Medical journal of Australia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. The Ethics of Authorship.The Ulster medical journal · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Paulina StehlikGriffith University, Gold Coast, QLD.ORCID 0000-0002-5397-228X
Caitlyn WithersGold Coast Hospital and Health Service, Gold Coast, QLD.
Rachel C BourkeGold Coast Hospital and Health Service, Gold Coast, QLD.
Adrian G BarnettInstitute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD.
Caitlin BrandenburgBond University, Gold Coast, QLD.ORCID 0000-0002-6992-7790
Christy NobleThe University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD.
Alexandra Bannach-BrownQUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin Institute of Health at the Charité University Medical Hospital, Berlin, Germany.
Gerben B KeijzersGriffith University, Gold Coast, QLD.
Ian A ScottThe University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD.ORCID 0000-0002-7596-0837
Paul P GlasziouInstitute for Evidence-Based Practice, Bond University, Gold Coast, QLD.ORCID 0000-0001-7564-073X
Emma C VeyseySt Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC.
Sharon MickanBond University, Gold Coast, QLD.
Mark MorganBond University, Gold Coast, QLD.
Hitesh JoshiThe Prince Charles Hospital, Brisbane, QLD.
Kirsty ForrestBond University, Gold Coast, QLD.
Thomas G CampbellSunshine Coast University Hospital, Kawana Waters, QLD.
David A HenryBond University, Gold Coast, QLD.ORCID 0000-0003-2934-2242

Funding

Gold Coast Health RGS2020-037
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine how many specialist trainees are required to conduct research projects, how they conduct these studies, and their views on the value of these activities; to assess the design and reporting quality of their research reports. STUDY

designOnline, anonymous survey. SETTING,

participantsCurrent and recent trainees (past five years) at Australian and New Zealand specialist colleges, recruited through eleven colleges and snowballing; survey was available 31 March - 31 December 2021.

main outcome measuresWhether trainees were required to conduct research as part of specialty training; how they conducted their projects; the skills mix of the project team and access to relevant expertise and supervision; trainee views on mandatory research during specialty training; research engagement after training. Respondents were invited to submit project reports for reporting and methodological quality evaluation.

resultsA total of 371 people commenced the survey; 361 respondents provided answers about mandatory research projects during specialist training, including 311 (86%) who had been required to complete projects. Seventy-six of 177 people who had completed projects (43%) provided information about 92 projects and submitted 34 project reports for evaluation. Thirty-eight projects (41%) investigated questions developed by the trainees alone; in 48 cases (52%) trainees had planned their projects with little outside input; of the 69 study protocols developed (75% of projects), 60 were developed by the trainees. The median proportion of time devoted to the research project exceeded 50% for trainees in ten of twelve colleges. Respondents typically worked in non-collaborative teams, restricted to members of their own specialty, and additional expertise was limited to statisticians, allied health professionals, and nurses. Eighty-seven of 174 participants who had completed projects (50%) felt that doing so was very or moderately important for their clinical careers; 36 of 67 respondents (54%) supported the requirement for scholarly projects during specialty training; 33 of 61 respondents (54%) had participated in research after completing training, and 44 (72%) had considered doing so. Twenty-five of 34 available reports had been published; in 27 assessable reports, methods and results reporting was generally poor, and the risk of bias moderate to high in all but three. Participants criticised using their own time for projects and their potentially low quality results.

conclusionFor trainees who undertake specialty training, the time commitment and poor quality research associated with mandatory research projects were frequently concerns. Medical colleges should focus on research training tailored to individual career aspirations and training needs.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchEducation, Medical, GraduateAttitude of Health PersonnelAustraliaFemaleHumansMaleNew ZealandSurveys and QuestionnairesResearch design

Identifiers

PMID40000918
PMCPMC11910950

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.